My thoughts on IP and anti-IP tunnel vision

Miscellaneous General
201

they might be protecting a physical piece of paper. they may bind their employees to secracy and thereby influence them from ‘speaking certain words’ and ‘writing certain patterns’ . yet to call the information that they are seeking to protect Intellectual Property, is still Not Correct. and a step beyond all that you need to do to speak plainly.

you could say they are taking steps to protect information. why do you want to talk about who ‘owns it’ ? who knows it is the key isnt it?

the coke formula isnt property, its information that is not owned by anyone, merely known to some, and not to others. so i object to the use of the word property, and indeed Intellectual Property, in how you have used them to make your argument for the possibility of trade secrets and entrepeneurial attempts to handle information flows.

you can call me pedantic, but i think its a big deal. and not a subtle point at all but key

202

Rich, this is a response to your posts. You make excellent points, and I wish to address them. I’m trying to address them all, without making huge quotations…here goes…

I actually agree with your understanding of rights and morality; however, I disagree about its application to information. I would agree that scarcity is the basis of property, and that property rights are economically efficient. On the other hand, free contracts are also undeniably moral and often lead to economic efficiency. The right to make a contract demanding non-distribution of information is not based upon a right to rule. It is based in part on the consumer’s desired access to the information, which one believes would otherwise be untennable. The other part is the producer’s plan for assuring commercial profit. There is no guarantee restricting the information as such will be more profitable than an alternative business model that freely distributes it. It seems moral; however, that the producer is free to choose. The consumer should be free too. If several forms of information fulfill the same ends, they need only contract with the one that imposes the least cost to them, in terms of their own labor and freedom - in price and contractual restrictions of liberty. If they disagree with all such contracts, they may choose to do without. Attempts to circumvent these contracts should also be viewed as immoral. At the least, someone who has some form of restricted information should be forced to reveal its source or face obstruction of justice charges. Purposefully attempting to acquire information without a contract from a known illegal source (violating his contract) should be viewed little different than purposefully violating the contract itself.

Obviously, denying someone use of some information is most likely economically inefficient. But no one having that information at all is more inefficient. Turning to alternative business models that do no advocate information restriction only promote efficiency if they can profitably satisfy consumer desire. I am not arguing that they are incapable or even simply less profitable for all forms of information. I am saying that there are cases where using contracts to restrict information is more efficient at creating that information.

I am not talking about the server market, which is obviously dominated by Linux, FreeBSD, etc. I am talking about desktop users. One of the reasons Linux is commercially successful is the necessity of support services in such areas, especially when things get wildly complicated, as they can in the amount of customizations available to Linux.

The “people are just used to it”/inertia argument for MS Windows is not valid. People would have to believe the time necessary to learn Mac/Linux is worth some other form of value. In other words, they’ll bail on MS if they thought Mac/Linux was easier/more productive to use (including stability) or costs less (everyone nowadays knows they’ll have to buy a new version of windows in the not too far future). That people still prefer Windows (including vendors, who could simply refuse MS exclusivity contracts and become more profitable if what you say is true) is a testament to their preference in basically paying to not lean something new.

If Linux installation is too difficult for most home users, but it is simple to learn and easy to use, there would be a huge market for desktop Linux vendors who would do this installation service. So long as the service itself costed less than MS’s license per copy of Windows, it would be quite competitive. Hardware vendors themselves could collectively fund Linux variants to serve this purpose, such as but not limited to Ubuntu, as well as drivers for desirable hardware not produced by their manufacturer. Yet…it’s still lacking. I look forward to the day when this changes, because I’m not a huge MS fan in general.

One thing I will easily admit when it comes to Linux vs. MS is unfair ability in advertising, aided by the regulation and corporate tax structure on the media, which will favor MS over Linux. IBM has advertised Linux, but never to my knowledge as a desktop user OS, only as commercial/server solutions.

MS is also involved in a lot of legal crap, but in my view, much of it isn’t their fault - they are being unfairly sued, such as the netscape case. The Novell agreement and threats were out of hand, however. The company definitely uses resources unproductively towards legal privilege rather than attempt to innovate and collaborate.

Applying to how I view IP law, I don’t think there would ever be a case where two people could independently/coincidentally create the same information available for copyright. I don’t think patents are moral or purposeful. I would only apply copyright to those who freely accepted a contract of terms for receiving/using the information. I would go even further to say that all copyright violations would only face penalty of forfeiture of a portion of commercial revuenue, taking into account things like the duration since the copyright date, making all information at some point freely commercially and noncommercially transmissable.

Back to the game example, I really don’t play many volunteer-driven or subscription/ad-supported games. Given the market demand for the games I also enjoy, it seems quite apparent that scarce resources (human labor) are being used to best satisfy our desires. You are saying that absent IP laws, we would benefit because you assume the production process is more efficient. But not necessarily in this area. And not necessarily to my benefit. And if this hinders my ability to produce in order to satisfy my desires, then I shift my actions. This may effect others negatively…and so on and so on. I’m aware of what is not seen. I would not see any more of the products that I enjoy. I think it would be the corporate stockholders, producers, artists, developers, and me that would be harmed, while those who wanted their work for free or wanted them to produce (and me to buy) something different would positively benefit. In other words, it seems more like an attempt for others to rule us than for either EA or me to rule each other or you. You are forcing us to engage in what we view as an inefficient business model, as the producer is essentially banned from enforcing a contract that is designed to prevent their sales from turning into tips.

…

What about the long-term future? There is good reason to believe nearly all goods will be information-based. Nanofactories may produce most any physical good based on a few raw materials and information. Much of life will take place in virtual reality. Ads could be filtered out by more intelligent filters. Robotics may replace physical labor. Minds may be freed from any one body.

Socialists would mis-label this as a post-scarcity society. It would become all too clear that information production is a scarce service and must be attached to efficient business methods to promote mass production, or a design suited to the largest audience possible. If there is a distortion between the pricing of the labor and the consumer product, production is not arranged efficiently. It would become a gift economy full of prosumers aiming to fulfill their own desires and allowing the public to emulate them. This is a backwards step from the efficiency of division of labor and capital employed in mass production.

203

You post strawmen, and cannot back up your statements, then say I am being childish?

I’m not calling you a liar as an insult. I thought it was the gentler alternative to idiot. Because you are either stupid or dishonest when you fabricate false positions for your debate opponents, and refuse to back up your statements with facts.

204

Indeed, that is all they are protecting. A piece of paper.

You can’t protect an idea without being able to stop the ability of others to think and communicate.

Of course there’s a person in this thread who will argue that if you can contract with someone not to think of the formula (intentionally reverse engineer) or to communicate it (an NDA), then it is “possible” for “the market” to protect ideas.

Which is utterly flawed and fallacious short of contracting with every living being on the planet.

205

i feel i should point out that you are proposing a presumed guilty until proven innocent policy.

if you used to own a watch and you cant find it. and one day you see me and im wearing a watch that you think looks just like it. you cant simply asume i stole it and demand i prove where i purchased it and thats its not your watch, the burden on proof is on you to prove i stole it.

206

Mises’s arguments against socialism argued that free pricing was required to determine what was profitable or unprofitable, which would determine what should be produced and in what proportion, according to an endlessly complex arrangement of capital. Basically, to know if the production process was efficient, one only had to know whether the production of each part of the process was efficient. Attempting to judge whether it was or wasn’t according to central planning and consumer desires was inept at answering this.

Similarly, those who invest in some IP can sell its rights to publishers on a market, giving free pricing to information production. Capital is allocated among a variety of uses towards the IP that is most profitable. Nearly all arguments for “alternative business models” under no IP views effectively shift the profitability of any investment in an informational good from the consumer desire for the good itself (normally measured in sales of usage rights), toward consumer desires for related non-scarce goods, such as advertisements or merchandise or a physical copy of the information.

But no one can “own” the informational good and it commands no market price. There is a disconnect between the pricing of the labor required to produce the information and the prices of the ultimate goods sold. If someone produced an informational good that was highly desired but failed to correctly market it by producing non-desired related goods, he could not determine if the investment was profitable by selling the rights to the information to those who would better know how to market it. There may be entire cases where such marketing is simply impossible. Thus, these forms of information would appear to hold no profitability. With IP laws, such information would show stronger consumer demand than the information produced without IP law. Producers cannot be exactly sure what information to produce to best please consumer desire, only that which increases consumer demand for other goods and services.

Take for example a case where a game was only half completed and could not be marketed. The rights to the various pieces of information could be liquidated. The artwork or musical score for example, may have turned out to be profitable, while the code did not. Prices for the artists, coders, and the IP they produce would adjust accordingly. Without IP law, these assets have no price, and it can only be considered that the whole project was unprofitable. It could also lead to paradoxes as well. A project may be profitable, being simply pieced-together information from previous projects that were unprofitable.

I would argue that this isn’t as nearly as applicable to IP as it is to socialism, although it is in principle the same. Entrepreneurs can still calculate the profitability of some form of information production. But there are no intermediate prices. Calculation would be based upon a larger, more complex production process, which is prone to less efficiency…and a less clear understanding of what exactly to produce.

207

I can, just not when they’re aimed at something I favour.

208

I notice that since I pointed out I was quoting you in this thread you are unable to refute anything I have said. As i said, you are not capable of defending your previous position.

209

hi max perhaps you could link to the post in question or pull a qoute because i for one am unclear about what position you claim LS has become unable to defend

210

If you actually believe what you are saying then all efforts to protect industrial secrets, design secrets, development processes, software code, would be shown by the market place to be a complete waste of time. Furthermore, the people who practice such activity would be irrational. Yet if the marketplace is demonstrating that protecting these worthless pieces of paper is improving profitability then your theory must not be correct as the protection must be adding value. Coke is an excellent example. According to you and LS the formula at this point should be widely available and there should be an identical tasting drink at a much lower price, yet there isn’t. This particular example involves no government IP enforcement. Please explain the paradox, the market is doing exactly what you say is impossible.

211

I am not. All criminals are presumed guilty by someone before they are tried, or else there would be no such thing as a “suspect”. They are only proven guilty by the law after a fair trial. And a fair trial includes the right to not incriminate yourself.

Allow me to explain. In your example, this would depend on the specifics of the watch. If it could be verified that only one was produced, for instance, then it would suggest that the watch was indeed yours, and you would have better evidence to prove your case. On the other hand, if the watch was a mass-produced Timex that had no known unique markings, this would be an incredibly difficult case to prove. You could bring up a civil suit against the person independent of your likelihood of winning. You would not have the privilege to compell that person to incriminate themselves…or convince a jury to presume he is guilty without explicit evidence.

Similarly, if a copyright holder were to bring a case against a person in the manner I described, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person had reason to suspect a crime was committed, has knowledge that is potentially evidence of this crime, and refused to reveal this evidence. Given that the IP is so complex that there is no doubt that any sufficiently similar information must be a copy/direct variation, they should be able to make a solid case based upon their decision to market the IP exclusively under contract. For them to have additionally released the IP without any binding contract would defy common sense. Thus, it is reasonably conclusive to assume that anyone in possession of the IP must have received it by agreeing to their contract. The fact that someone now has the IP without agreeing to their contract means that someone has violated the contract, although not necessarily this possessor. That’s evidence of a crime, and the possessor obviously has knowledge necessary to attaining justice in this case. If he refuses to reveal this evidence, that’s evidence of another crime - obstruction of justice.

I don’t believe copyright holders would attempt to bring such charges against many individuals, only occasionally to root out an illegal distributor. And I believe such people would regularly reveal where they received the information rather than attempt to defend themselves in court. So long as they complied, they would face no legal penalty, and could not even be compelled to dispossess the IP.

212

max you are being disengenius. of course there can be information which can be called secret. yet this does not mean there is any sense to call it property. because its not a scarce good its not property.

you are simply expressing bad language when you claim the coke formula is IP, or property. please choose another word to consistently use and dont say IP. if you like you can say it somewhat mirrors what IP would be, if IP was not a fiction. ( a pleasant fiction for some). but i think it would be good fo yuo to acknoledge this point.

as far as coke goes :>

are there human beings that know the coke formula or is it only on a piece of paper? if it is known by people, which is what i assume. then over drinks at a bar a ‘knower of the formula’ might unlawfully(sic) tell it to me. i might not commit suicide. i might not forget what i was told. if i know information there is no sense of returning it to its rightful owner. that would be meaningless. perhaps the person that told me will pay a consequence for some breach of trust. but i know how to make coke. and i have not heard you describe a method that would restrict me for starting Nirola.

213

You can not say that on the one hand IP protection is impossible and then admit on the other that sometimes protection of ideas and inventions will sometimes be successful.

The marketplace demonstrates that protecting your ideas and inventions can be successful and aid in capturing the value of those ideas and inventions. That does not mean that your idea or invention is always guaranteed to be protected. Once again you have to distinguish between the possibility of something occurring (someone having the same idea or invention) and the probability of that event occurring.

By the way this is in response to the gentleman asking for the quotes I was referring to about LS.

214

‘obviously has knowledge’ ?

also is obstruction of justice a libertarian concept? i havent thought about it too much but it sounds rather statist at first glance.

215

IP protection is impossible because the concept of Intellectual Propoerty is impossible.

yet

it is possible , over periods of time, to keep secrets. this is not the same thing.

so, i agree with LS

216

It is irrelevant what you call it. The market is not concerned with what your defintion of property is. You think that because you don’t think of it as property that it reduces the value to zero. The marketplace places a value on ideas and inventions. These things are bought and sold and protected all without any government intervention or government protection in many cases. Your flawed to think that ideas are nothing and without value because they possess the possibility of being owned by another person.

Instead of repeating your mantra you should actually look at what people do in the marketplace. That is the only answer you need. What you say should be happenning in the marketplace is not happening. Your theory is not consistent with the observable actions in a free market place. Again, please explain what everyone in the market is doing and why it contradicts what you say should be happening. Please don’t cry government intervention because the vast majority of efforts to protect ideas and inventions are not under government enforcement.

This is where you and LS fail. Your theory does not explain what is actually happening.

217

So what is it that is being kept secret ? You have to stop repeating your mantra and actually look at what is happening and then explain it.

You say it is not the same but you can’t explain the difference and that is because there is no functional difference between protecting your ideas and inventions and protecting your property. Most people view the product of their own mind to be theirs depsite you running in circles claiming its not. Ideas can be owned by more than one person but that doesnt make it any less mine.

Again, explain why the market acts in contrast to your mantra.

218

you want me to explain why people keep trade secrets? im sure we both know that,..

you want me to explain why some people want to legally codify IP laws, well its to get monopoly prices and restrict competition. they are also absurd as they are calling the things that they value property.

property cease to be property when those that owned and those that might consider them place no value on them. they get abandoned.

conversely lots of thing can be valued and not be property. example. i might value my reputation. i might sufffer real costs to maintain my rewputation. my reputation is not my property. it would be absurd to frame laws that would protect my reputation property. yet it is not absurd to allow me to be free to act in my chosen interest even in such fields as care for my reputation.

so i reject your claim that LS and i fail. and i challenge you to defend your language. IP ? nonsense.

219

the information is being kept secret . yet intellectual property is not being kept secret.

why?

because information exists. and intellectual property doesnt.

see my prior post on reputation for example

220

Wow, a lot has happened since I last posted. I haven’t read through and sorted out what has been said for the past couple of days, but before I do I would like to respond to your question.

I find the argument I presented very convincing, but we have to be aware of the parameters we have set up. In order to use Mises’ argument we have to assume three things:

  1. Good F (which is required to produce good G, Weel and Car - as by your example) is on the inventors side of the disconnect, meaning it has not been developed and the Idea is still super scarce.

  2. Good F is not developed by a third party, i.e. an independent inventor.

  3. We also assume that good F recieves a price of 0 on the market, which assumes away all IP or business models based on limiting the supply of the good.

This is why I support an inventors’ copyright which I detailed earlier (this would not prohibit discovery and sale by a third party, but would prohibit direct copying of the inventors idea). This would solve the Misesian IP paradox, since good F will be produced giving way to good G - (consumer satisfaction is greater under the monopoly price, since good G would not have been made), but does not prohibit third party invention.

Secondly, thank you nirgrahamUK for your calm response as well as presenting your reasoned arguments. Even if we don’t fully agree, we can still attempt to go about listening and learning from one another.